Agenda item

Marcus Briginshaw (Finance Manager), and Graham Young (Lead Finance Business Partner), introduced the report detailing Cabinet’s budget proposals for the next financial year.

Officers confirmed that the report was the second of two regular annual appearances from the Council’s finance team on the budget setting process. The first report, considered in summer 2019, confirmed the size of the challenge ahead, with an update on the current budget gap, and advised that work was underway to address the budget gap through savings, contingency and growth proposals.

The report set out the context of the budget recommendations, updates on funding and spend to recalculate the budget gap, and details of specific proposals within the remit of the Committee.

Current projections remained in line with those presented in the summer, with funding updates from the Chancellor’s Spending Review adding a marginal £0.7m net funding to the Council. This had resulted in a forecasted budget gap of £27.7m for the three years to 2023, made up of the £20m savings to be identified in Table 1 of the report, plus the £7.7m of current savings proposals. This budget gap remained consistent with previous years and with other Local Authorities.

The budget gap assumed an inflationary uplift to Council Tax of 1.8% per annum, based on 90% of the assumed uplift across London. In addition, for the first time, the Council was proposing to utilise the Social Care Precept and add a further 2% rise in Council Tax, as it was apparent that this was a key element of Government’s funding strategy for Social Care in 2020/21. The total 3.8% increase in Council Tax added £43.31 per year to the average Band D Council Tax liability, or £0.83p per week.

The 2020/21 budget gap was the result of 3 areas:

·         £13m demand-led and inflation (population growth) for continuing the same services;

·         £6m financing for Councils capital investment, increasing to £12.4m by 2024/25; and

·         £8m savings deferred from previous year in line with Council’s saving strategy agreed in February 2019.

The Committee asked a number of questions, including:

How was the near £14m designated schools deficit going to be managed? In the past, this had predominantly related to High Needs Places funding, and the Council had previously requested that the School Forum contribute to this funding. Was this likely to happen again?

It was accepted that the schools deficit was an area of concern. To help manage this, a request had been made to the Department for Education (DfE) to transfer money from the schools block in an effort to close the gap in-year.

With regard to High Needs Places funding, there was additional funding available from the Government and through the Council, and further detail could be shared once the new strategy was finalised.

Some members commented that, with the Fair Funding formula and the reduction in numbers that some primary schools were experiencing, there was difficult in balancing the books in respect of schools. It was suggested that Council should recognise the pressures schools were facing and not ask too much of schools, in relation to High Needs funding.

The report set out an approximate £17m reduction in funding for expansion of secondary schools. Was this due to a large forecasted drop in the projected numbers of pupils moving forward?

Primary and secondary school place forecasts were based on population projections from the GLA which were showing a reduction in the need for places due to a variety of factors including parental preference, residential development etc. This was resulting in a projected move to an extra 3 forms of entry in the north of the Borough, and 1.5 forms of entry in the south of the Borough. Planned investment was therefore being reduced in line with these projections. However, modelling and forecasting continued to be carried out annually, and the need for continued investment to meet the overall high need remained. The peak forecasted was for entry in September 2022, when it is forecast that an extra 8 forms of entry will be required to meet demand across the Borough.

Members raised concerns that the increase in the charges for the processing of DIY and trade waste at amenity sites could potentially incentivise fly-tipping.

Labour Group Members expressed concerns over the budget, with specific reference to the Council’s use of capital receipts to fund some aspects of transformation, which was felt to disguise cuts to services or headcount around the BID team. It was stressed that the Council should aim to ensure that it was maximizing fundraising and income, such as external grants, to make best use of Arts and Leisure provision.

Labour Members also reminded the Committee of its remit to monitor Council services to ensure the Council was continuing to fulfil its obligations in light of cuts to services. An example of issues with the SEND service was highlighted, including reports that the Council was not achieving the 20 week statutory requirement for Education and Healthcare Plans, with statistics available showing that in 2018, Hillingdon was the seventh worst in London for achieving that target. In addition, an elderly resident at Christmas was informed that she owed money to the Council when in fact it was the Council that owed money to her. This had been a great source of stress to this resident, who was still awaiting a resolution to the issue.

Other Members responded by stating that they felt that the Committee’s role was to monitor the overall policy rather than its direct implementation, a function that they felt the Committee was fulfilling. Members highlighted the regular reports received by the Committee, and the regular opportunities given to the Committee to challenge officers.

Members noted the contents of the report, and Councillor Tuckwell suggested:

‘That it was gratifying to see that, despite the financial pressures faced by the Council, the Capital Programme was able to provide adequate funds for projects to maintain and improve services for residents, such as the resurfacing of roads and footpaths, an increase in youth provision, and new leisure and sports facilities. In addition, the Committee was pleased to recognise the Council’s recruitment of additional ASBET enforcement officers, its support for additional duties from the Environment Bill, and the allocation of resource aligned to animal welfare, and supported and endorsed the Council’s approach when reviewing fees and charges with a view to keeping within 90% of that of neighbouring boroughs.’

Following a proposal by the Chairman, the above comments were approved by the Committee as comments to be submitted on the budget. It was noted that Labour Group Members did not endorse these comments.

RESOLVED: 

1. That the report be noted;
2. That the Committee’s agreed comments on the budget be included in the forthcoming report to the Corporate Services, Commerce and Communities Policy Overview Committee.
3. That officers were to share the detail of High Needs Places funding with the Committee, once available.